The WHO says it's impossible to prove you're immune to coronavirus. This sets the stage for everyone being required to get the vaccine in order to re-enter society, meaning that they lied about "immunity passports." It will be vaccine passports. https://t.co/nFOjJDr1sL

The first quote is from the article in the tweet above about how showing antibodies does not infer immunity. However, the second quote is from the CDC about how some vaccines are tested and if antibody response is seen the vaccine is assumed to be effective and provide immunity. They change the rules to suite their agenda and their agenda is to force vaccines on all of us.

“These antibody tests will be able to measure that level of serology presence, that level of antibodies, but that does not mean that somebody with antibodies” is immune, said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases unit, CNBC.com reported.

"...some vaccines are licensed based on RCTs that use antibody response to the vaccine as measured in the laboratory, rather than decreases in influenza disease among people who were vaccinated."

It matters not how long you are immune to this particular virus. Variations on viruses occur all the time and your immune system reacts to these changes. It is after all a minor illness and no way justifies a vaccine. Coronavirus is not to be feared as much as the mass hysteria. In the past mass hysterias triggered by relatively minor events have resulted in war. And not until the people exhausted themselves and their wealth in war did sanity slowly and one by one begin to return. RW is correct, if the masses cannot be shaken from this hysteria the results could be disastrous.

I am predicting that the false narrative that the Great Depression only ended by our involvement in WWII, will be instructive for Trump, once Great Depression 2.0 is dragging-on and on...and he will find a way to get us involved in another war. A really big one. Iran probably.

Whatever happened to "my body, my rules" that abortion aficionados are always trumpeting? For this to be "Constitutional" illustrates something I commented on earlier: That the Constitution is a minefield of inconsistent, self-serving interpretations.